>>3907 Yes. See Brazil where the monarchy was so successful it didn't have to actively use its power for decades, to the point where an entire generation grew up thinking it was no longer necessary and overthrew it creating the chaos it prevented. This is the only time where a state office has done so well it became defunct, and it is one of the greatest ironies where communists think their "dictatorship of the proleteriat" would fade away under advanced socialism yet have historically only ever gotten more powerful, while under the private and domineering hands of a monarch stands the single greatest example of liberty preceding authority begotten by individual wisdom. The United States only does as well as it does with a quasi-absolute arbitrator in the Supreme Court, in which judges sit for life to enable them to make decisions with a free conscience knowing their office is secured regardless of the political ramifications of their rulings. Adding a monarch to the judicial branch to personify the virtues of the libertarian regime would inspire faith in its values, moderate immoral excess, and establish a living tradition to be carried throughout successive generations to ensure the consistent interpretation of justice.

>>3908 where can I read/listen to more about brazilian monarchy? I know nothing about it, you made me curious.

>>3909 >>>/monarchy/

It would be way better than what we have now, but it still doesn't solve the main problem with statism, and that's that it'll eventually grow overtime. America, when it was founded, was arguably the most libertarian country of all time! And now just a few centuries later, look at where it's at. Sure, you could say that this was democracy's fault, but the UK is a monarchy and they're not doing any better. A monarchy might slow down the process significantly, but it's not going to fix it entirely. I would prefer a libertarian monarchy over what we have now, but I'll still advocate for ancapistan.

>>3912 >but the UK is a monarchy and they're not doing any better The UK is a nominal monarchy. The Queen has so little power over her subjects at this point that they might as well not have her at all. I really doubt she's happy about the state of her... well, state, but there isn't much she can do about it without risking imprisonment and/or civil war, or at least intense unrest.

>>3919 The British monarchy hasn't had any power over its wealthy elite since the English Civil War. The Magna Carta showed how the aristocrats could collude to threaten a weak monarch into following their every demand.

Americans voluntarily choose to work at a job for a wage and then turn around and scream that they are helpless and exploited victims because there is only one company in the world and you can't quit, start a business, or learn a new skill.